1mperium (sorel Mizzi) In A Heap Of Trouble...

[Ben_G 0]

FYP

If gman posted.... WWW.superthread.comLove it!!

[Vick12 0]

Well, anyone defending "taking over" for someone during a tourney can go fuck themselves. It's cheating and deceptive. Same goes for the buying and selling of accounts. Same goes for someone coaching you during a tourney, via IM, in person or over the phone.It's cheating. Try doing it during a live tourney, like, by making a phonecall to DN to ask him what to do during a hand. Or calling over your buddy on the rail to ask his advice. Can't be done.Fucking cheaters.

I don't agree w/ most of this. I DO AGREE that the "buying" of accts etc IS CHEATING etc. Having a person "take over" because u had something happen...u know...like internet connection failing etc. That is specifically outlined in the T&C of all sites. I also couldn't possibly disagree more on the coaching during a tourney etc. THERE IS NO 1 PERSON PER HAND RULE IN ONLINE POKER. If there WAS a 1 person per hand rule, they could NEVER EVER IN A BRAZILLION YEARS ENFORCE IT. With that being the case, I don't think it'd cheating at all to be coached and/or have AIM/MSN convos while playing.Your live example doesn't equate here because it's comparing apples to oranges. There ARE SPECIFIC 1 PERSON PER HAND RULES LIVE....THERE IS NO 1 PERSON PER HAND RULE ONLINE. So unless the sites decide to pass an unenforceable rule...this is NOT CHEATING and shouldn't be brought up along the same lines as what JJ's did/does or what Sorel "likely" did. What cracks me up about all these guys is this...If u are gonna BUY someones acct...why not just negotiate a % of the final number...THEN DON'T BE A FRICKEN IDIOT AND COACH THAT DUDE THROUGH EVERY HAND!!!! Why log out and then back in from a seprate IP? There would be ZERO trail left over and nobody would be the wiser. Especially as thick as thieves as all these guys seem to be...you would think they would be better at covering their tracks etc.I guess being good at poker does not equal being good at cheating!!!

[chgocubs99 0]

I don't agree w/ most of this. I DO AGREE that the "buying" of accts etc IS CHEATING etc. Having a person "take over" because u had something happen...u know...like internet connection failing etc. That is specifically outlined in the T&C of all sites. I also couldn't possibly disagree more on the coaching during a tourney etc. THERE IS NO 1 PERSON PER HAND RULE IN ONLINE POKER. If there WAS a 1 person per hand rule, they could NEVER EVER IN A BRAZILLION YEARS ENFORCE IT. With that being the case, I don't think it'd cheating at all to be coached and/or have AIM/MSN convos while playing.Your live example doesn't equate here because it's comparing apples to oranges. There ARE SPECIFIC 1 PERSON PER HAND RULES LIVE....THERE IS NO 1 PERSON PER HAND RULE ONLINE. So unless the sites decide to pass an unenforceable rule...this is NOT CHEATING and shouldn't be brought up along the same lines as what JJ's did/does or what Sorel "likely" did. What cracks me up about all these guys is this...If u are gonna BUY someones acct...why not just negotiate a % of the final number...THEN DON'T BE A FRICKEN IDIOT AND COACH THAT DUDE THROUGH EVERY HAND!!!! Why log out and then back in from a seprate IP? There would be ZERO trail left over and nobody would be the wiser. Especially as thick as thieves as all these guys seem to be...you would think they would be better at covering their tracks etc.I guess being good at poker does not equal being smart enough to figure out what is cheating and what isn't, so as not to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars!!!

FYP, since if they followed your guidelines, what they would be doing would not be cheating, as you outlined above.Great points here.

[Naismith 0]

There ARE SPECIFIC 1 PERSON PER HAND RULES LIVE....THERE IS NO 1 PERSON PER HAND RULE ONLINE.

This fact seems to be one a lot of people are missing.

[irishguy 14]

This fact seems to be one a lot of people are missing.

But that doesn't make it anymore ethical. I could be wrong but I believe six months to a years ago there was nothing in the fulltilt terms in regards to purchasing a seat in a tourney you'd already busted from but that doesn't mean it wasn't unethical then.

[Naismith 0]

But that doesn't make it anymore ethical. I could be wrong but I believe six months to a years ago there was nothing in the fulltilt terms in regards to purchasing a seat in a tourney you'd already busted from but that doesn't mean it wasn't unethical then.

Eh, I just don't agree with you. I think it was a dumb rule allowing people to purchase a seat and it was changed. I don't see an ethics issue involved here.

[BigLebowski 0]

We have obv entered a new age of poker and there seem to be a few fine lines to debate in live vs online. Yes there are no 1-player per hand rules online, but that doesn't mean a lot of people, people that might be called purists that won't find it ethical. I would imagine 95% of the players who haven't had help from friends late in an online tourney don't have any friends, the other 5% might be the purists. It is impossible to carry every single rule from live poker and apply it to online poker. I think discussions like this could very possible lead to future rules being put into place. However, it is quite obvious it would be impossible to enforce a 1-player per hand rule. I do not know what FTP found in the investigation that caused the shutdown of the players accounts, but if they were as smart as it sounds like they are they should have easily been able to accomplish the same outcome without breaking any "rules". That is what should really scare people.

[GWCGWC 83]

What cracks me up about all these guys is this...If u are gonna BUY someones acct...why not just negotiate a % of the final number...THEN DON'T BE A FRICKEN IDIOT AND COACH THAT DUDE THROUGH EVERY HAND!!!! Why log out and then back in from a seprate IP? There would be ZERO trail left over and nobody would be the wiser. Especially as thick as thieves as all these guys seem to be...you would think they would be better at covering their tracks etc.I guess being good at poker does not equal being good at cheating!!!

I thought about this a bit the other day. Lets say CV got a IM from JJ or whomever saying they would buy his account for 22K cash along with 5% of whatever is won above the 22K with 18 players left. CV looks at the payout and sees that he would have to get 6th to make more money than the 22K with a chance at making more. The money starts to sink in, his throat gets tight, his concentration slips just enough to make him nervous, etc. I think the above is how something like this would go down. Now think about how JJ could protect his money if he won? The only way is to have control of the acct. If he coached CV to a win, what's stopping CV from telling him to piss off? There has to be holes in my scenario but this is all I could come up with. While Vick has proven he's good at poker but claims to be lousy at cheating, I claim to being lousy at both.

[tskillz187 0]

Yes there are no 1-player per hand rules online, but that doesn't mean a lot of people, people that might be called purists that won't find it ethical. I would imagine 95% of the players who haven't had help from friends late in an online tourney don't have any friends, the other 5% might be the purists. It is impossible to carry every single rule from live poker and apply it to online poker.

For me there is a grey area. When I used to play a lot of MTTs when I got deep I'd usually sign off AIM. It's not that I think it's unethical to get advice, but I wanted to get better and make my own decisions. There's a huge sense of pride in winning a bigger buyin ($55+) MTT that pros are playing in all on your own. But other than that, I also don't want to follow somone else's advice when it isn't mine. Busting out of big tourneys doing something your normally wouldn't feels like garbage. That being said I've never gotten down to the final 20 players or so in a Sunday or UBOC, FTOPS, or WCOOP, I think if I did though I'd still sign offline for the same reasons. I don't hold it against people that are getting help/coaching late in tourneys, it's their own decision. It'd be nice to know exactly who and how many people I'm playing, but it's just not realistic.Now buying and selling accounts is just flat out unethical. I don't care how you break it down if it was in the rules or not, it's unethical. There is a huge difference to me. I think most people believe this is wrong and so do I. Again, I've never been deep in a huge tourney though, and if I was offered 30k or something to give my account up that would be scary. I assume I'd say no because I'd think that I could win the whole thing and want to earn it, plus the fact that I think it's unethical and horrible to do. But who knows, it hasn't happened to me.

[zengame 0]

For me there is a grey area. When I used to play a lot of MTTs when I got deep I'd usually sign off AIM. It's not that I think it's unethical to get advice, but I wanted to get better and make my own decisions. There's a huge sense of pride in winning a bigger buyin ($55+) MTT that pros are playing in all on your own. But other than that, I also don't want to follow somone else's advice when it isn't mine. Busting out of big tourneys doing something your normally wouldn't feels like garbage. That being said I've never gotten down to the final 20 players or so in a Sunday or UBOC, FTOPS, or WCOOP, I think if I did though I'd still sign offline for the same reasons. I don't hold it against people that are getting help/coaching late in tourneys, it's their own decision. It'd be nice to know exactly who and how many people I'm playing, but it's just not realistic.Now buying and selling accounts is just flat out unethical. I don't care how you break it down if it was in the rules or not, it's unethical. There is a huge difference to me. I think most people believe this is wrong and so do I. Again, I've never been deep in a huge tourney though, and if I was offered 30k or something to give my account up that would be scary. I assume I'd say no because I'd think that I could win the whole thing and want to earn it, plus the fact that I think it's unethical and horrible to do. But who knows, it hasn't happened to me.

I see poker as a solitary sport, man against man. I'd don't want to think about the times when I've been a bubble boy or missed the final table and an adversary was getting coached. Whether in the same room by phone or AIM. It is a pride thing I win or lose on my own. But like anything BIG money corrupts.

[Vick12 0]

While Vick has proven he's good at poker but claims to be lousy at cheating, I claim to being lousy at both.

1st off....ISAP!!!2nd...I never said I was good at cheating....I said "I guess being good at poker does not equal being good at cheating!!!" That being said...I am a quality cheater when I want to be...=)

I see poker as a solitary sport, man against man. I'd don't want to think about the times when I've been a bubble boy or missed the final table and an adversary was getting coached. Whether in the same room by phone or AIM. It is a pride thing I win or lose on my own. But like anything BIG money corrupts.

I don't disagree in principle....but it doesn't apply here. What I mean is...I was "coached" and have "coached" other players in things as small a level as .50/1 limit and $50NL. For me and/or anyone I was coaching...money had likely NOTHING to do with what we were working on. We were usually working on the fundamentals of a game etc. In fact...there was a time when I ONLY knew how to play Sng's and MTT's...and some would say I didn't know how to play them!!! I worked w/ Steve, Jamie, etc. on games like 2-7 TD, HORSE games, etc. I would almost always play microlevels of these games while being taught. So in my case, money had NOTHING to do w/ my motivation to get better at those games. I simple wanted to be coached and learn those games before I started to play for more serious money. I don't see anything unethical about players chatting on AIM/MSN etc. Considering it is logistically impossible to keep people from communicating these ways, there is no way that sites could ever implement the "1 player per hand" rule. So...when I play LIVE....I keep to 1 hand per person and try to monitor cheating as I play. I am looking out for things liked marked cards, dealers being a little too friendly w/ locals (not chatting type stuff...I actually walked from a Commerce table when I was sure a dealer and a player were in cahoots and informed a floorman), and general softplaying between players.When I play ONLINE, I KNOW before I sit at a table that the players at my table could be. A. Using pokertracker to keep stats on me and/or B. Using MSN/AIM while playing against me. In both cases I know what I am in for before I play.(sorry if this rant ended up disjointed..I think I started and stopped typing this post 30 times here at work...lol)